DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 251/2018
No. __________________ Dated : ____________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt. LAL MATI W/o SH. MANOJ KUMAR,
R/O H. No.-B-16, GURUDARA ROAD,
KESHAV NAGAR, IBRAHIMPUR,
POLICE STATION SWAROOP NAGAR,
DELHI-110036. …COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
JIO MOBILE,
JIO RELIANCE HOUSE,
R.K. 4 SQUARE BUILDING No.4,
DLF, PHASE-II, CYBER CITY,
GURGAON-122002.…OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 17.04.2018
Date of Decision: 01.06.2018
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP underthe Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging cheating by OP and praying for initiation of legal proceedings against OP on the basis of Leave and License Agreement dated 20.11.2017 (wrongly typed as 20.10.2017 in the complaint) executed between
CC No. 251/2018 Page 1 of 4
the complainant and OP through its constituted attorney for installation of a mobile tower on an area of 500 Sq. Ft. on the roof top of the property situated at Khasra no. 220, Mukti Ashram, Keshav Nagar, Village-Quadipur, Delhi-110036 belonging to the complainant on a monthly rent of Rs.17,000/-.
2. We have heard the Counsel for the complainant on the admissibility of the case and have considered the case of the complainant. The complainant has also alleged that OP has not obtained sanction/permission from the Competent/Municipal Authorities to install mobile tower and other related equipmentand OP have violated the terms & conditions of leave & license agreement dated20.11.2017 and OP is also not paying the amount of Rs.17,000/- per month which was agreed to be paid by the OP as monthly rent.
3. The first and foremost question which arises for consideration is “whether or not the complainant is a consumer” as envisaged u/s 2 (1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and “whether the complaint is maintainable”.
4. In order to find answer to this question it would be useful to consider Sec. 2 (1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986, which defines the term “Consumer”. On reading the said Section it is clear that Consumer is a person who buys goods for consideration or hires or avail of service for consideration. There is an exception to the explanation
CC No. 251/2018 Page 2 of 4
by providing that if the person hires or avails service for consideration for commercial purpose, he would not be termed as “Consumer”.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that there can be a dispute with the aforesaid interpretation of Sec. 2(1)(d) (i) & (ii) of the Act but the explanation to the Section gives a limited meaning to the term “Commercial Purpose”.
6. We are not convinced with the aforesaid submissions. On a perusal of Leave and License Agreement dated 20.11.2017 which was executed by both the parties there is Clause 9 which provides for “Cancellation & termination on frustration of the object and other reasons”. There is sub-clause (c) of clause 9 of the said agreement which reads as under: (c ) if prohibited by reason of any government or court or tribunal order, law, regulation, restriction, requirement, municipal bye-law.
7. The complainant has also filed copy of order dated 04.01.2018 issued by Assist. Engineer (Bldg.), Civil Line Zone, North Delhi Municipal Corporation Delhi which is address to the SHO, Police Station Swaroop Nagar, Delhi to take action under the provisions of Sec. 344 (2) of the D.M.C. Act against the owner namely Sh. Manoj Kumar of the property bearing no. B-16, Gurudara Road, B-Block, Keshav Nagar, Delhi for unauthorized installation of mobile tower. It
CC No. 251/2018 Page 3 of 4
clearly shows that prior to installation of mobile tower on a residential building in a residential area, the parties are required to obtain prior sanction/permission of the Municipal Authorities. In the present case, the sanction/permission for installation of mobile tower has not been obtained. As such, the Leave & License Agreement dated 20.11.2017 pertains to an illegal/unauthorized act. It clearly shows that by way of the present complaint, the complainant is trying to take benefit out of an illegal/unauthorized agreement which can not be permitted. Thus, the complainant is not covered under the definition of the word “Consumer”. Thus, the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed with special cost of Rs.5,000/- on the complainant which be deposited with “Consumer Legal Aid Account-NDMC” within 4 weeks.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of The Consumer Protection Regulations-2005. Therefore, file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 1stday of June, 2018.
BARIQ AHMAD USHA KHANNA M.K.GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MENBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 251/2018 Page 4 of 4
